Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 901 | control, N = 451 | treatment, N = 451 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 90 | 50.26 ± 13.07 (25 - 74) | 50.23 ± 13.34 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 12.94 (28 - 73) | 0.981 |
gender | 90 | 0.480 | |||
f | 65 (72%) | 31 (69%) | 34 (76%) | ||
m | 25 (28%) | 14 (31%) | 11 (24%) | ||
occupation | 90 | 0.790 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 10 (11%) | 5 (11%) | 5 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (6.7%) | 3 (6.7%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
other | 2 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
part_time | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (18%) | ||
retired | 23 (26%) | 11 (24%) | 12 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.4%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
student | 2 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
unemploy | 24 (27%) | 14 (31%) | 10 (22%) | ||
marital | 90 | 0.690 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
divore | 10 (11%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 22 (24%) | 10 (22%) | 12 (27%) | ||
none | 50 (56%) | 24 (53%) | 26 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.3%) | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.3%) | 1 (2.2%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
edu | 90 | 0.662 | |||
bachelor | 26 (29%) | 9 (20%) | 17 (38%) | ||
diploma | 19 (21%) | 12 (27%) | 7 (16%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.3%) | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (7.8%) | 4 (8.9%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.4%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (11%) | 6 (13%) | 4 (8.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 18 (20%) | 9 (20%) | 9 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
fam_income | 90 | 0.922 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.4%) | 1 (2.2%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.4%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.4%) | 3 (6.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.3%) | 1 (2.2%) | 2 (4.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.4%) | 3 (6.7%) | 1 (2.2%) | ||
20001_above | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (18%) | ||
2001_4000 | 14 (16%) | 9 (20%) | 5 (11%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (11%) | 4 (8.9%) | 6 (13%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (10%) | 5 (11%) | 4 (8.9%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (7.8%) | 3 (6.7%) | 4 (8.9%) | ||
below_2000 | 14 (16%) | 8 (18%) | 6 (13%) | ||
medication | 90 | 80 (89%) | 41 (91%) | 39 (87%) | 0.502 |
onset_duration | 90 | 15.12 ± 10.70 (0 - 56) | 16.42 ± 11.84 (1 - 56) | 13.82 ± 9.38 (0 - 35) | 0.252 |
onset_age | 90 | 35.14 ± 13.99 (14 - 64) | 33.81 ± 12.80 (14 - 58) | 36.47 ± 15.12 (15 - 64) | 0.370 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 901 | control, N = 451 | treatment, N = 451 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 90 | 3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.11 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.723 |
recovery_stage_b | 90 | 17.93 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.73 ± 2.80 (9 - 23) | 18.13 ± 2.50 (13 - 23) | 0.477 |
ras_confidence | 90 | 29.97 ± 4.78 (19 - 43) | 29.42 ± 4.43 (19 - 40) | 30.51 ± 5.10 (20 - 43) | 0.282 |
ras_willingness | 90 | 12.17 ± 1.93 (7 - 15) | 12.00 ± 1.88 (9 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.99 (7 - 15) | 0.416 |
ras_goal | 90 | 17.52 ± 2.87 (12 - 24) | 17.33 ± 2.88 (12 - 24) | 17.71 ± 2.89 (12 - 24) | 0.536 |
ras_reliance | 90 | 13.08 ± 2.75 (8 - 20) | 12.91 ± 2.57 (8 - 18) | 13.24 ± 2.94 (8 - 20) | 0.569 |
ras_domination | 90 | 9.84 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 10.29 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.40 ± 2.32 (3 - 14) | 0.071 |
symptom | 90 | 30.50 ± 9.67 (14 - 56) | 31.93 ± 9.86 (14 - 55) | 29.07 ± 9.38 (15 - 56) | 0.161 |
slof_work | 90 | 22.68 ± 4.84 (10 - 30) | 22.49 ± 4.37 (13 - 30) | 22.87 ± 5.32 (10 - 30) | 0.713 |
slof_relationship | 90 | 25.64 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 25.02 ± 5.88 (13 - 35) | 26.27 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.318 |
satisfaction | 90 | 20.23 ± 6.80 (5 - 32) | 18.64 ± 6.42 (5 - 29) | 21.82 ± 6.86 (5 - 32) | 0.026 |
mhc_emotional | 90 | 11.00 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.47 ± 3.58 (3 - 17) | 11.53 ± 4.00 (4 - 18) | 0.186 |
mhc_social | 90 | 14.78 ± 5.28 (6 - 30) | 14.84 ± 5.32 (7 - 30) | 14.71 ± 5.31 (6 - 26) | 0.906 |
mhc_psychological | 90 | 21.79 ± 6.04 (6 - 36) | 21.16 ± 5.68 (9 - 36) | 22.42 ± 6.37 (6 - 36) | 0.322 |
resilisnce | 90 | 16.47 ± 4.51 (6 - 27) | 16.00 ± 4.27 (6 - 24) | 16.93 ± 4.74 (7 - 27) | 0.329 |
social_provision | 90 | 13.64 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.16 ± 2.38 (8 - 20) | 14.13 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.101 |
els_value_living | 90 | 17.10 ± 2.88 (5 - 25) | 16.49 ± 2.40 (12 - 22) | 17.71 ± 3.21 (5 - 25) | 0.044 |
els_life_fulfill | 90 | 12.53 ± 3.28 (4 - 20) | 11.51 ± 3.01 (5 - 17) | 13.56 ± 3.26 (4 - 20) | 0.003 |
els | 90 | 29.63 ± 5.58 (9 - 45) | 28.00 ± 4.61 (18 - 36) | 31.27 ± 6.02 (9 - 45) | 0.005 |
social_connect | 90 | 27.04 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 28.07 ± 8.19 (8 - 45) | 26.02 ± 9.82 (8 - 48) | 0.286 |
shs_agency | 90 | 14.33 ± 4.84 (3 - 24) | 13.44 ± 4.45 (3 - 21) | 15.22 ± 5.10 (3 - 24) | 0.082 |
shs_pathway | 90 | 16.39 ± 3.91 (4 - 24) | 15.80 ± 3.78 (8 - 24) | 16.98 ± 3.99 (4 - 23) | 0.154 |
shs | 90 | 30.72 ± 8.31 (7 - 47) | 29.24 ± 7.87 (13 - 45) | 32.20 ± 8.55 (7 - 47) | 0.092 |
esteem | 90 | 12.68 ± 1.56 (10 - 18) | 13.00 ± 1.61 (10 - 18) | 12.36 ± 1.46 (10 - 16) | 0.050 |
mlq_search | 90 | 15.07 ± 3.19 (3 - 21) | 14.91 ± 3.04 (6 - 21) | 15.22 ± 3.37 (3 - 21) | 0.647 |
mlq_presence | 90 | 13.49 ± 4.10 (3 - 21) | 13.29 ± 3.68 (5 - 21) | 13.69 ± 4.51 (3 - 21) | 0.646 |
mlq | 90 | 28.56 ± 6.43 (6 - 42) | 28.20 ± 5.74 (12 - 40) | 28.91 ± 7.10 (6 - 42) | 0.603 |
empower | 90 | 19.28 ± 4.06 (6 - 28) | 18.76 ± 3.61 (11 - 24) | 19.80 ± 4.45 (6 - 28) | 0.225 |
ismi_resistance | 90 | 14.69 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.38 ± 2.16 (11 - 19) | 15.00 ± 2.97 (5 - 20) | 0.258 |
ismi_discrimation | 90 | 11.37 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 12.24 ± 2.99 (5 - 19) | 10.49 ± 3.05 (5 - 19) | 0.007 |
sss_affective | 90 | 10.04 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 10.49 ± 3.58 (3 - 18) | 9.60 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 0.257 |
sss_behavior | 90 | 9.68 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 10.29 ± 4.05 (3 - 18) | 9.07 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 0.141 |
sss_cognitive | 90 | 8.14 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 8.56 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 7.73 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 0.301 |
sss | 90 | 27.87 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 29.33 ± 10.54 (9 - 54) | 26.40 ± 10.38 (9 - 54) | 0.187 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.11 | 0.174 | 2.77, 3.45 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.089 | 0.245 | -0.570, 0.392 | 0.718 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.198 | 0.258 | -0.307, 0.703 | 0.445 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.292 | 0.367 | -0.428, 1.01 | 0.430 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.7 | 0.408 | 16.9, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.400 | 0.577 | -0.730, 1.53 | 0.489 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.275 | 0.566 | -1.38, 0.834 | 0.629 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.944 | 0.808 | -0.639, 2.53 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.740 | 28.0, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 1.047 | -0.963, 3.14 | 0.301 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.429 | 0.781 | -1.10, 1.96 | 0.585 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 1.115 | -1.07, 3.30 | 0.324 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.297 | 11.4, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.333 | 0.420 | -0.489, 1.16 | 0.429 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.840 | 0.310 | -1.45, -0.232 | 0.009 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.946 | 0.443 | 0.077, 1.81 | 0.037 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.457 | 16.4, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.378 | 0.647 | -0.890, 1.65 | 0.560 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.665 | 0.522 | -1.69, 0.358 | 0.208 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.57 | 0.745 | 0.112, 3.03 | 0.039 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.417 | 12.1, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.333 | 0.589 | -0.821, 1.49 | 0.573 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.225 | 0.422 | -0.603, 1.05 | 0.597 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.10 | 0.603 | -0.082, 2.28 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.341 | 9.62, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.889 | 0.483 | -1.83, 0.057 | 0.068 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.569 | 0.434 | -1.42, 0.282 | 0.196 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.71 | 0.619 | 0.501, 2.93 | 0.008 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.9 | 1.439 | 29.1, 34.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.87 | 2.035 | -6.85, 1.12 | 0.162 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.222 | 1.128 | -1.99, 2.43 | 0.845 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.82 | 1.612 | -4.98, 1.33 | 0.263 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.729 | 21.1, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.378 | 1.031 | -1.64, 2.40 | 0.715 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.414 | 0.649 | -1.69, 0.858 | 0.527 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.161 | 0.927 | -1.98, 1.66 | 0.863 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.878 | 23.3, 26.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.24 | 1.241 | -1.19, 3.68 | 0.318 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.26 | 0.843 | -2.91, 0.393 | 0.141 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.58 | 1.204 | -0.781, 3.94 | 0.196 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.6 | 1.024 | 16.6, 20.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.18 | 1.449 | 0.339, 6.02 | 0.030 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.795 | 1.169 | -1.50, 3.09 | 0.500 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.058 | 1.670 | -3.21, 3.33 | 0.972 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.562 | 9.36, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.07 | 0.795 | -0.492, 2.63 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.451 | 0.537 | -0.602, 1.50 | 0.405 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.561 | 0.767 | -2.06, 0.943 | 0.468 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.830 | 13.2, 16.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.133 | 1.174 | -2.43, 2.17 | 0.910 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.762 | 0.923 | -1.05, 2.57 | 0.412 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.469 | 1.317 | -3.05, 2.11 | 0.723 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.2 | 0.950 | 19.3, 23.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.27 | 1.344 | -1.37, 3.90 | 0.348 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.573 | 0.993 | -1.37, 2.52 | 0.567 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.153 | 1.419 | -2.93, 2.63 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.661 | 14.7, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.933 | 0.935 | -0.900, 2.77 | 0.321 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.116 | 0.701 | -1.26, 1.49 | 0.869 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 1.001 | -0.852, 3.07 | 0.272 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.430 | 12.3, 14.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.978 | 0.608 | -0.214, 2.17 | 0.111 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.826 | 0.508 | -1.82, 0.170 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.989 | 0.726 | -0.433, 2.41 | 0.178 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.440 | 15.6, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.22 | 0.622 | 0.004, 2.44 | 0.052 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.058 | 0.481 | -1.00, 0.886 | 0.905 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.527 | 0.687 | -0.820, 1.87 | 0.446 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.462 | 10.6, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.04 | 0.653 | 0.764, 3.32 | 0.002 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.847 | 0.453 | -0.042, 1.73 | 0.067 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.456 | 0.647 | -1.72, 0.813 | 0.484 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.094 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.819 | 26.4, 29.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.27 | 1.158 | 0.998, 5.54 | 0.006 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.739 | 0.793 | -0.815, 2.29 | 0.355 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.141 | 1.132 | -2.08, 2.36 | 0.901 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.088 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.387 | 25.3, 30.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.04 | 1.961 | -5.89, 1.80 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 1.251 | -1.38, 3.52 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.47 | 1.788 | -5.97, 1.04 | 0.174 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.726 | 12.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.78 | 1.027 | -0.235, 3.79 | 0.086 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.203 | 0.737 | -1.24, 1.65 | 0.784 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.506 | 1.053 | -1.56, 2.57 | 0.633 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.578 | 14.7, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.818 | -0.425, 2.78 | 0.153 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.249 | 0.581 | -0.891, 1.39 | 0.671 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.285 | 0.830 | -1.91, 1.34 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 1.233 | 26.8, 31.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.96 | 1.744 | -0.462, 6.37 | 0.093 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.441 | 1.207 | -1.93, 2.81 | 0.716 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.236 | 1.725 | -3.14, 3.62 | 0.892 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.213 | 12.6, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.644 | 0.301 | -1.23, -0.055 | 0.034 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.097 | 0.319 | -0.722, 0.528 | 0.763 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.483 | 0.455 | -0.409, 1.37 | 0.295 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.486 | 14.0, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.311 | 0.687 | -1.03, 1.66 | 0.651 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.212 | 0.571 | -1.33, 0.906 | 0.711 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.173 | 0.815 | -1.77, 1.42 | 0.833 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.615 | 12.1, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.400 | 0.869 | -1.30, 2.10 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.067 | 0.684 | -1.27, 1.41 | 0.922 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.016 | 0.977 | -1.93, 1.90 | 0.987 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 0.985 | 26.3, 30.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.711 | 1.392 | -2.02, 3.44 | 0.611 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.148 | 1.109 | -2.32, 2.03 | 0.894 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.186 | 1.583 | -3.29, 2.92 | 0.907 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.613 | 17.6, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.868 | -0.656, 2.74 | 0.231 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.039 | 0.571 | -1.16, 1.08 | 0.946 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.291 | 0.816 | -1.89, 1.31 | 0.722 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.376 | 13.6, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.622 | 0.531 | -0.419, 1.66 | 0.244 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.026 | 0.495 | -0.997, 0.945 | 0.958 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.193 | 0.707 | -1.19, 1.58 | 0.786 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.464 | 11.3, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.76 | 0.656 | -3.04, -0.470 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.511 | 0.475 | -1.44, 0.420 | 0.287 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.729 | 0.678 | -0.600, 2.06 | 0.287 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.534 | 9.44, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.889 | 0.756 | -2.37, 0.592 | 0.242 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.011 | 0.518 | -1.03, 1.00 | 0.983 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.10 | 0.740 | -2.55, 0.348 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.567 | 9.18, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 0.802 | -2.79, 0.349 | 0.130 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.124 | 0.581 | -1.26, 1.01 | 0.831 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.670 | 0.829 | -2.30, 0.955 | 0.423 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.56 | 0.550 | 7.48, 9.63 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.822 | 0.778 | -2.35, 0.703 | 0.293 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.934 | 0.501 | -0.049, 1.92 | 0.068 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.78 | 0.716 | -3.19, -0.378 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.528 | 26.3, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.93 | 2.162 | -7.17, 1.30 | 0.178 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.817 | 1.352 | -1.83, 3.47 | 0.548 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.53 | 1.931 | -7.31, 0.257 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.77, 3.45], t(131) = 17.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.39], t(131) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.70], t(131) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.01], t(131) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.86])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.73 (95% CI [16.93, 18.53], t(131) = 43.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.53], t(131) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.83], t(131) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.53], t(131) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.97, 30.87], t(131) = 39.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.14], t(131) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.96], t(131) = 0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.07, 3.30], t(131) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [11.42, 12.58], t(131) = 40.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.16], t(131) = 0.79, p = 0.427; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.45, -0.23], t(131) = -2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.72, -0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.08, 1.81], t(131) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.44, 18.23], t(131) = 37.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.65], t(131) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.36], t(131) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [0.11, 3.03], t(131) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.04, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.91 (95% CI [12.09, 13.73], t(131) = 31.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.49], t(131) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.05], t(131) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.28], t(131) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.29 (95% CI [9.62, 10.96], t(131) = 30.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.06], t(131) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.28], t(131) = -1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.71, 95% CI [0.50, 2.93], t(131) = 2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.22, 1.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.93 (95% CI [29.11, 34.75], t(131) = 22.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-6.85, 1.12], t(131) = -1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.43], t(131) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-4.98, 1.33], t(131) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.49 (95% CI [21.06, 23.92], t(131) = 30.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.40], t(131) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.86], t(131) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.66], t(131) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.02 (95% CI [23.30, 26.74], t(131) = 28.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.68], t(131) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.39], t(131) = -1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.94], t(131) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.64 (95% CI [16.64, 20.65], t(131) = 18.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.18, 95% CI [0.34, 6.02], t(131) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.05, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.50, 3.09], t(131) = 0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.33], t(131) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 8.25e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.47 (95% CI [9.36, 11.57], t(131) = 18.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.63], t(131) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.50], t(131) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.94], t(131) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.22, 16.47], t(131) = 17.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.43, 2.17], t(131) = -0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.57], t(131) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-3.05, 2.11], t(131) = -0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.16 (95% CI [19.29, 23.02], t(131) = 22.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.37, 3.90], t(131) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.52], t(131) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.93, 2.63], t(131) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.00 (95% CI [14.70, 17.30], t(131) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.77], t(131) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.49], t(131) = 0.17, p = 0.869; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.85, 3.07], t(131) = 1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.31, 14.00], t(131) = 30.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.17], t(131) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.17], t(131) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.41], t(131) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.49 (95% CI [15.63, 17.35], t(131) = 37.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [3.66e-03, 2.44], t(131) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [1.21e-03, 0.80])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.89], t(131) = -0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.87], t(131) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.51 (95% CI [10.61, 12.42], t(131) = 24.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.04, 95% CI [0.76, 3.32], t(131) = 3.13, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.24, 1.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.73], t(131) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.81], t(131) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.00 (95% CI [26.40, 29.60], t(131) = 34.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.27, 95% CI [1.00, 5.54], t(131) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.17, 0.97])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.29], t(131) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.36], t(131) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.07 (95% CI [25.35, 30.78], t(131) = 20.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.04, 95% CI [-5.89, 1.80], t(131) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.38, 3.52], t(131) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.47, 95% CI [-5.97, 1.04], t(131) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.44 (95% CI [12.02, 14.87], t(131) = 18.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-0.24, 3.79], t(131) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.65], t(131) = 0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.56, 2.57], t(131) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.80 (95% CI [14.67, 16.93], t(131) = 27.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.78], t(131) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.39], t(131) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.34], t(131) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.24 (95% CI [26.83, 31.66], t(131) = 23.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.96, 95% CI [-0.46, 6.37], t(131) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.81], t(131) = 0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-3.14, 3.62], t(131) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.00 (95% CI [12.58, 13.42], t(131) = 61.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.05], t(131) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.53], t(131) = -0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.37], t(131) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.91 (95% CI [13.96, 15.86], t(131) = 30.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.66], t(131) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.91], t(131) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.77, 1.42], t(131) = -0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.29 (95% CI [12.08, 14.49], t(131) = 21.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.10], t(131) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.41], t(131) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.90], t(131) = -0.02, p = 0.987; Std. beta = -4.01e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.77e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.20 (95% CI [26.27, 30.13], t(131) = 28.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-2.02, 3.44], t(131) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.03], t(131) = -0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-3.29, 2.92], t(131) = -0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.76 (95% CI [17.55, 19.96], t(131) = 30.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.74], t(131) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.08], t(131) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -9.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.31], t(131) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.38 (95% CI [13.64, 15.11], t(131) = 38.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.66], t(131) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.94], t(131) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.58], t(131) = 0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.24 (95% CI [11.34, 13.15], t(131) = 26.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.04, -0.47], t(131) = -2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.42], t(131) = -1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.06], t(131) = 1.07, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.44, 11.54], t(131) = 19.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.59], t(131) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.00], t(131) = -0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = -3.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.35], t(131) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.29 (95% CI [9.18, 11.40], t(131) = 18.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.35], t(131) = -1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.01], t(131) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.96], t(131) = -0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.56 (95% CI [7.48, 9.63], t(131) = 15.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.35, 0.70], t(131) = -1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.92], t(131) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-3.19, -0.38], t(131) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.34, 32.33], t(131) = 19.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.93, 95% CI [-7.17, 1.30], t(131) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.83, 3.47], t(131) = 0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.53, 95% CI [-7.31, 0.26], t(131) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 432.129 | 440.889 | -213.065 | 426.129 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 434.012 | 451.532 | -211.006 | 422.012 | 4.117 | 3 | 0.249 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 661.425 | 670.185 | -327.713 | 655.425 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 664.090 | 681.610 | -326.045 | 652.090 | 3.335 | 3 | 0.343 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 806.782 | 815.542 | -400.391 | 800.782 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 806.760 | 824.280 | -397.380 | 794.760 | 6.022 | 3 | 0.111 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 558.871 | 567.630 | -276.435 | 552.871 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 555.552 | 573.072 | -271.776 | 543.552 | 9.319 | 3 | 0.025 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 681.492 | 690.251 | -337.746 | 675.492 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 681.131 | 698.651 | -334.566 | 669.131 | 6.360 | 3 | 0.095 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 650.631 | 659.391 | -322.315 | 644.631 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 645.848 | 663.368 | -316.924 | 633.848 | 10.783 | 3 | 0.013 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 612.076 | 620.836 | -303.038 | 606.076 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 609.279 | 626.798 | -298.639 | 597.279 | 8.797 | 3 | 0.032 |
symptom | null | 3 | 962.076 | 970.836 | -478.038 | 956.076 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 963.203 | 980.723 | -475.601 | 951.203 | 4.873 | 3 | 0.181 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 783.405 | 792.165 | -388.703 | 777.405 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 788.095 | 805.614 | -388.047 | 776.095 | 1.311 | 3 | 0.727 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 843.898 | 852.658 | -418.949 | 837.898 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 845.515 | 863.035 | -416.758 | 833.515 | 4.383 | 3 | 0.223 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 902.545 | 911.305 | -448.273 | 896.545 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 902.174 | 919.693 | -445.087 | 890.174 | 6.372 | 3 | 0.095 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 719.294 | 728.054 | -356.647 | 713.294 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 723.103 | 740.623 | -355.552 | 711.103 | 2.191 | 3 | 0.534 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 837.282 | 846.042 | -415.641 | 831.282 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 842.419 | 859.939 | -415.210 | 830.419 | 0.863 | 3 | 0.834 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 869.832 | 878.592 | -431.916 | 863.832 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 874.395 | 891.915 | -431.198 | 862.395 | 1.437 | 3 | 0.697 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 775.243 | 784.003 | -384.622 | 769.243 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 776.288 | 793.808 | -382.144 | 764.288 | 4.955 | 3 | 0.175 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 668.710 | 677.470 | -331.355 | 662.710 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 667.018 | 684.538 | -327.509 | 655.018 | 7.692 | 3 | 0.053 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 667.374 | 676.134 | -330.687 | 661.374 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 667.024 | 684.544 | -327.512 | 655.024 | 6.350 | 3 | 0.096 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 678.531 | 687.290 | -336.265 | 672.531 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 671.405 | 688.925 | -329.702 | 659.405 | 13.126 | 3 | 0.004 |
els | null | 3 | 831.715 | 840.475 | -412.857 | 825.715 | |||
els | random | 6 | 827.099 | 844.619 | -407.549 | 815.099 | 10.616 | 3 | 0.014 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 963.510 | 972.270 | -478.755 | 957.510 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 965.461 | 982.980 | -476.730 | 953.461 | 4.049 | 3 | 0.256 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 797.132 | 805.892 | -395.566 | 791.132 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 798.326 | 815.846 | -393.163 | 786.326 | 4.806 | 3 | 0.187 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 731.204 | 739.964 | -362.602 | 725.204 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 735.031 | 752.551 | -361.515 | 723.031 | 2.174 | 3 | 0.537 |
shs | null | 3 | 938.034 | 946.794 | -466.017 | 932.034 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 940.328 | 957.848 | -464.164 | 928.328 | 3.706 | 3 | 0.295 |
esteem | null | 3 | 489.316 | 498.076 | -241.658 | 483.316 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 490.263 | 507.783 | -239.131 | 478.263 | 5.053 | 3 | 0.168 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 694.686 | 703.446 | -344.343 | 688.686 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 699.918 | 717.438 | -343.959 | 687.918 | 0.768 | 3 | 0.857 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 754.433 | 763.193 | -374.217 | 748.433 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 760.181 | 777.701 | -374.091 | 748.181 | 0.252 | 3 | 0.969 |
mlq | null | 3 | 884.611 | 893.371 | -439.306 | 878.611 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 890.243 | 907.763 | -439.121 | 878.243 | 0.369 | 3 | 0.947 |
empower | null | 3 | 740.383 | 749.143 | -367.192 | 734.383 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 744.689 | 762.209 | -366.345 | 732.689 | 1.694 | 3 | 0.638 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 634.331 | 643.091 | -314.165 | 628.331 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 638.232 | 655.752 | -313.116 | 626.232 | 2.098 | 3 | 0.552 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 677.607 | 686.367 | -335.804 | 671.607 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 676.180 | 693.700 | -332.090 | 664.180 | 7.427 | 3 | 0.059 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 711.549 | 720.309 | -352.774 | 705.549 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 710.398 | 727.917 | -349.199 | 698.398 | 7.151 | 3 | 0.067 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 730.441 | 739.201 | -362.220 | 724.441 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 731.200 | 748.720 | -359.600 | 719.200 | 5.241 | 3 | 0.155 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 716.153 | 724.913 | -355.077 | 710.153 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 713.081 | 730.601 | -350.541 | 701.081 | 9.072 | 3 | 0.028 |
sss | null | 3 | 992.075 | 1,000.835 | -493.038 | 986.075 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 990.378 | 1,007.898 | -489.189 | 978.378 | 7.697 | 3 | 0.053 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 45 | 3.11 ± 1.16 | 45 | 3.02 ± 1.16 | 0.718 | 0.091 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 24 | 3.31 ± 1.15 | -0.203 | 23 | 3.51 ± 1.15 | -0.502 | 0.546 | -0.208 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 45 | 17.73 ± 2.73 | 45 | 18.13 ± 2.73 | 0.489 | -0.189 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 24 | 17.46 ± 2.65 | 0.130 | 23 | 18.80 ± 2.64 | -0.316 | 0.084 | -0.636 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 45 | 29.42 ± 4.97 | 45 | 30.51 ± 4.97 | 0.301 | -0.387 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 24 | 29.85 ± 4.41 | -0.152 | 23 | 32.05 ± 4.39 | -0.547 | 0.089 | -0.782 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 45 | 12.00 ± 1.99 | 45 | 12.33 ± 1.99 | 0.429 | -0.298 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 24 | 11.16 ± 1.76 | 0.752 | 23 | 12.44 ± 1.75 | -0.094 | 0.014 | -1.145 |
ras_goal | 1st | 45 | 17.33 ± 3.07 | 45 | 17.71 ± 3.07 | 0.560 | -0.200 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 24 | 16.67 ± 2.79 | 0.351 | 23 | 18.62 ± 2.78 | -0.479 | 0.018 | -1.030 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 45 | 12.91 ± 2.79 | 45 | 13.24 ± 2.79 | 0.573 | -0.220 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 24 | 13.14 ± 2.45 | -0.148 | 23 | 14.57 ± 2.44 | -0.874 | 0.047 | -0.946 |
ras_domination | 1st | 45 | 10.29 ± 2.29 | 45 | 9.40 ± 2.29 | 0.068 | 0.557 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 24 | 9.72 ± 2.16 | 0.356 | 23 | 10.55 ± 2.15 | -0.718 | 0.191 | -0.517 |
symptom | 1st | 45 | 31.93 ± 9.65 | 45 | 29.07 ± 9.65 | 0.162 | 0.719 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 24 | 32.15 ± 7.96 | -0.056 | 23 | 27.46 ± 7.87 | 0.402 | 0.044 | 1.176 |
slof_work | 1st | 45 | 22.49 ± 4.89 | 45 | 22.87 ± 4.89 | 0.715 | -0.164 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 24 | 22.08 ± 4.15 | 0.179 | 23 | 22.29 ± 4.11 | 0.249 | 0.857 | -0.094 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 45 | 25.02 ± 5.89 | 45 | 26.27 ± 5.89 | 0.318 | -0.413 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 24 | 23.76 ± 5.10 | 0.418 | 23 | 26.59 ± 5.06 | -0.106 | 0.059 | -0.937 |
satisfaction | 1st | 45 | 18.64 ± 6.87 | 45 | 21.82 ± 6.87 | 0.030 | -0.749 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 24 | 19.44 ± 6.25 | -0.187 | 23 | 22.67 ± 6.22 | -0.201 | 0.078 | -0.762 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 45 | 10.47 ± 3.77 | 45 | 11.53 ± 3.77 | 0.183 | -0.556 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 24 | 10.92 ± 3.26 | -0.235 | 23 | 11.42 ± 3.24 | 0.057 | 0.594 | -0.264 |
mhc_social | 1st | 45 | 14.84 ± 5.57 | 45 | 14.71 ± 5.57 | 0.910 | 0.040 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 24 | 15.61 ± 5.03 | -0.228 | 23 | 15.00 ± 5.00 | -0.088 | 0.681 | 0.180 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 45 | 21.16 ± 6.37 | 45 | 22.42 ± 6.37 | 0.348 | -0.354 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 24 | 21.73 ± 5.65 | -0.160 | 23 | 22.84 ± 5.61 | -0.118 | 0.499 | -0.312 |
resilisnce | 1st | 45 | 16.00 ± 4.44 | 45 | 16.93 ± 4.44 | 0.321 | -0.369 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 24 | 16.12 ± 3.95 | -0.046 | 23 | 18.16 ± 3.92 | -0.485 | 0.078 | -0.809 |
social_provision | 1st | 45 | 13.16 ± 2.88 | 45 | 14.13 ± 2.88 | 0.111 | -0.528 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 24 | 12.33 ± 2.65 | 0.446 | 23 | 14.30 ± 2.64 | -0.088 | 0.012 | -1.062 |
els_value_living | 1st | 45 | 16.49 ± 2.95 | 45 | 17.71 ± 2.95 | 0.052 | -0.703 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 24 | 16.43 ± 2.65 | 0.033 | 23 | 18.18 ± 2.64 | -0.270 | 0.025 | -1.006 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 45 | 11.51 ± 3.10 | 45 | 13.56 ± 3.10 | 0.002 | -1.260 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 24 | 12.36 ± 2.70 | -0.522 | 23 | 13.95 ± 2.68 | -0.241 | 0.045 | -0.979 |
els | 1st | 45 | 28.00 ± 5.49 | 45 | 31.27 ± 5.49 | 0.006 | -1.152 | ||
els | 2nd | 24 | 28.74 ± 4.76 | -0.261 | 23 | 32.15 ± 4.73 | -0.310 | 0.015 | -1.202 |
social_connect | 1st | 45 | 28.07 ± 9.30 | 45 | 26.02 ± 9.30 | 0.300 | 0.459 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 24 | 29.14 ± 7.92 | -0.240 | 23 | 24.63 ± 7.85 | 0.313 | 0.052 | 1.012 |
shs_agency | 1st | 45 | 13.44 ± 4.87 | 45 | 15.22 ± 4.87 | 0.086 | -0.672 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 24 | 13.65 ± 4.28 | -0.077 | 23 | 15.93 ± 4.25 | -0.268 | 0.069 | -0.863 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 45 | 15.80 ± 3.88 | 45 | 16.98 ± 3.88 | 0.153 | -0.565 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 24 | 16.05 ± 3.40 | -0.119 | 23 | 16.94 ± 3.38 | 0.017 | 0.368 | -0.428 |
shs | 1st | 45 | 29.24 ± 8.27 | 45 | 32.20 ± 8.27 | 0.093 | -0.684 | ||
shs | 2nd | 24 | 29.69 ± 7.20 | -0.102 | 23 | 32.88 ± 7.14 | -0.157 | 0.130 | -0.738 |
esteem | 1st | 45 | 13.00 ± 1.43 | 45 | 12.36 ± 1.43 | 0.034 | 0.532 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 24 | 12.90 ± 1.41 | 0.080 | 23 | 12.74 ± 1.41 | -0.319 | 0.695 | 0.134 |
mlq_search | 1st | 45 | 14.91 ± 3.26 | 45 | 15.22 ± 3.26 | 0.651 | -0.150 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 24 | 14.70 ± 2.99 | 0.102 | 23 | 14.84 ± 2.98 | 0.185 | 0.874 | -0.067 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 45 | 13.29 ± 4.12 | 45 | 13.69 ± 4.12 | 0.646 | -0.161 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 24 | 13.36 ± 3.72 | -0.027 | 23 | 13.74 ± 3.70 | -0.020 | 0.724 | -0.155 |
mlq | 1st | 45 | 28.20 ± 6.60 | 45 | 28.91 ± 6.60 | 0.611 | -0.177 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 24 | 28.05 ± 5.99 | 0.037 | 23 | 28.58 ± 5.96 | 0.083 | 0.764 | -0.131 |
empower | 1st | 45 | 18.76 ± 4.12 | 45 | 19.80 ± 4.12 | 0.231 | -0.513 | ||
empower | 2nd | 24 | 18.72 ± 3.53 | 0.019 | 23 | 19.47 ± 3.50 | 0.162 | 0.464 | -0.370 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 45 | 14.38 ± 2.52 | 45 | 15.00 ± 2.52 | 0.244 | -0.339 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 24 | 14.35 ± 2.40 | 0.014 | 23 | 15.17 ± 2.40 | -0.091 | 0.246 | -0.445 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 45 | 12.24 ± 3.11 | 45 | 10.49 ± 3.11 | 0.009 | 1.029 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 24 | 11.73 ± 2.74 | 0.299 | 23 | 10.71 ± 2.72 | -0.128 | 0.200 | 0.601 |
sss_affective | 1st | 45 | 10.49 ± 3.58 | 45 | 9.60 ± 3.58 | 0.242 | 0.479 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 24 | 10.48 ± 3.11 | 0.006 | 23 | 8.49 ± 3.09 | 0.601 | 0.029 | 1.074 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 45 | 10.29 ± 3.80 | 45 | 9.07 ± 3.80 | 0.130 | 0.586 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 24 | 10.16 ± 3.35 | 0.060 | 23 | 8.27 ± 3.33 | 0.381 | 0.054 | 0.907 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 45 | 8.56 ± 3.69 | 45 | 7.73 ± 3.69 | 0.293 | 0.460 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 24 | 9.49 ± 3.15 | -0.523 | 23 | 6.89 ± 3.12 | 0.475 | 0.005 | 1.458 |
sss | 1st | 45 | 29.33 ± 10.25 | 45 | 26.40 ± 10.25 | 0.178 | 0.610 | ||
sss | 2nd | 24 | 30.15 ± 8.69 | -0.170 | 23 | 23.69 ± 8.61 | 0.564 | 0.012 | 1.344 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(125.70) = -0.36, p = 0.718, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.40)
2st
t(132.09) = 0.61, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(120.45) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.54)
2st
t(131.90) = 1.74, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.87)
ras_confidence
1st
t(104.57) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.99 to 3.17)
2st
t(132.98) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.74)
ras_willingness
1st
t(104.24) = 0.79, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.17)
2st
t(132.96) = 2.49, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.29)
ras_goal
1st
t(108.06) = 0.58, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.66)
2st
t(132.86) = 2.40, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.56)
ras_reliance
1st
t(103.07) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.50)
2st
t(132.81) = 2.01, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.02 to 2.85)
ras_domination
1st
t(114.20) = -1.84, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.07)
2st
t(132.21) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.07)
symptom
1st
t(96.33) = -1.41, p = 0.162, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-6.90 to 1.17)
2st
t(127.31) = -2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-9.26 to -0.12)
slof_work
1st
t(99.11) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.42)
2st
t(130.96) = 0.18, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.17 to 2.60)
slof_relationship
1st
t(101.27) = 1.00, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.71)
2st
t(132.30) = 1.91, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.11 to 5.75)
satisfaction
1st
t(108.10) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.31 to 6.05)
2st
t(132.86) = 1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.37 to 6.84)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(101.09) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.64)
2st
t(132.22) = 0.53, p = 0.594, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.38)
mhc_social
1st
t(106.82) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.46 to 2.19)
2st
t(132.96) = -0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.50 to 2.29)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(104.23) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.93)
2st
t(132.96) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.14 to 4.36)
resilisnce
1st
t(104.79) = 1.00, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.79)
2st
t(132.99) = 1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.23 to 4.32)
social_provision
1st
t(109.90) = 1.61, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.18)
2st
t(132.68) = 2.54, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -1.06, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.49)
els_value_living
1st
t(106.14) = 1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.45)
2st
t(132.99) = 2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.27)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(101.96) = 3.13, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.75 to 3.34)
2st
t(132.55) = 2.03, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.14)
els
1st
t(101.52) = 2.82, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.97 to 5.56)
2st
t(132.40) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -1.20, 95% CI (0.67 to 6.15)
social_connect
1st
t(99.47) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.94 to 1.85)
2st
t(131.26) = -1.96, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-9.06 to 0.04)
shs_agency
1st
t(103.14) = 1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.81)
2st
t(132.82) = 1.83, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.18 to 4.75)
shs_pathway
1st
t(102.77) = 1.44, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.80)
2st
t(132.76) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.85)
shs
1st
t(101.88) = 1.69, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.50 to 6.41)
2st
t(132.52) = 1.53, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.95 to 7.33)
esteem
1st
t(126.48) = -2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.24 to -0.05)
2st
t(132.15) = -0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.65)
mlq_search
1st
t(109.59) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.67)
2st
t(132.71) = 0.16, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.86)
mlq_presence
1st
t(106.92) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.12)
2st
t(132.95) = 0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.53)
mlq
1st
t(107.45) = 0.51, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.47)
2st
t(132.91) = 0.30, p = 0.764, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.92 to 3.97)
empower
1st
t(100.32) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.77)
2st
t(131.83) = 0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.78)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(116.65) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.67)
2st
t(132.02) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.20)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(103.45) = -2.68, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.06 to -0.45)
2st
t(132.87) = -1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.55)
sss_affective
1st
t(101.57) = -1.18, p = 0.242, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.61)
2st
t(132.41) = -2.20, p = 0.029, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-3.78 to -0.20)
sss_behavior
1st
t(103.45) = -1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.81 to 0.37)
2st
t(132.87) = -1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-3.82 to 0.04)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(99.72) = -1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.37 to 0.72)
2st
t(131.44) = -2.84, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.46, 95% CI (-4.42 to -0.79)
sss
1st
t(98.94) = -1.36, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-7.22 to 1.36)
2st
t(130.81) = -2.56, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-11.45 to -1.47)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(67.08) = 1.86, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.02)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(62.94) = 1.15, p = 0.507, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.83)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(53.39) = 1.92, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.06 to 3.14)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(53.21) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.74)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(55.29) = 1.70, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.98)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(52.59) = 3.06, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(58.85) = 2.58, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.04)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(49.12) = -1.39, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.92 to 0.72)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(50.53) = -0.87, p = 0.782, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.76)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(51.65) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.05)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(55.31) = 0.71, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.25)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(51.55) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.99)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(54.60) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.19)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(53.21) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.46)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(53.50) = 1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.67)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(56.32) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.21)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(54.23) = 0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.46)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(52.00) = 0.84, p = 0.808, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.32)
els
1st vs 2st
t(51.78) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.51)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(50.72) = -1.09, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.18)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(52.62) = 0.94, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.22)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(52.43) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(51.97) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.80 to 3.16)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(67.80) = 1.18, p = 0.483, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.04)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(56.15) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(54.66) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.46)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(54.95) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.61 to 1.94)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(51.16) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.84)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(60.38) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.18)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(52.79) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.19)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(51.80) = -2.10, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.18 to -0.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(52.79) = -1.34, p = 0.375, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.40)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(50.85) = -1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.18)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(50.45) = -1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.49 to 0.07)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(65.92) = 0.76, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.72)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(62.01) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.86)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(52.97) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.00)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(52.81) = -2.70, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.22)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(54.77) = -1.27, p = 0.420, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.39)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(52.22) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.08)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(58.14) = -1.30, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.31)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(48.93) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.05 to 2.49)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(50.27) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.89)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(51.32) = -1.49, p = 0.285, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.96 to 0.44)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(54.79) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.15)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(51.24) = 0.84, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.53)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(54.12) = 0.82, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.62)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(52.80) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.57)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(53.08) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.53)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(55.75) = -1.62, p = 0.223, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.20)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(53.78) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.91)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(51.66) = 1.86, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.76)
els
1st vs 2st
t(51.45) = 0.93, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.34)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(50.44) = 0.85, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.59)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(52.25) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.69)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(52.07) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.42)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(51.63) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(66.59) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.54)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(55.59) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.94)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(54.18) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(54.45) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.09)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(50.86) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.11)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(59.59) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.97)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(52.41) = -1.07, p = 0.578, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.45)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(51.47) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.03)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(52.41) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(50.56) = 1.86, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.94)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(50.19) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.54)
Plot
